DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the Applicants’ arguments/remarks filed 9/24/2024.
Claim 1 is currently amended. Claims 2-4 are canceled.
Claims 1, 2, 5-9 are presently examined. Claims 10-13 are withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the claim numbering recites “Figure 1”, “Figure 2”, etc., instead of the required abbreviation “FIG 1”, “FIG 2”, etc. See 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1). See also MPEP 608.02(V). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peleg (US 20140014126A1) in view of Ye (US20190319445).
Regarding Claim 1, Peleg teaches an aerosol generating apparatus [0023] comprising:
a cartridge configured to accommodate an aerosol generating material [0023];
a processor (See FIG 2 and FIG 7); and
an electronic circuit connected to the cartridge and the processor (see FIG 2 and FIG 7), wherein
Peleg teaches the processor is configured to detect a remaining amount of the aerosol generating material by using a fixed resistor included in the electronic circuit (the processor uses the pwm controller to use data calculated with the fixed resister which is connected to the heater ([0074] heating element includes a resistor 708, see also [0075], Rcoil is the fixed resistance of the resistor that connects to the heating element, one of ordinary skill would recognize that this coil has a fixed resistance because the circuit is configured to deliver a small voltage to the heating coil and measure the returning current to the smart controller, the resistance of the heating coil would be determined in real time to determine the liquid level
the fixed resistor being connected between a first terminal and a second terminal (see Peleg annotated FIG 7 below), and
Peleg teaches the remaining amount (of liquid) is detected based on a voltage value across the fixed resistor (the controller delivers a small voltage pulse to the heating coil and measures the return current to the smart controller, the data is used to determine the remaining liquid and by extension the remaining liquid [0089], one ordinary skill in the art would recognize this remaining liquid determination is based on the voltage value in that small voltage pulse delivered by the controller),
Peleg teaches the electronic circuit includes a third terminal for transmitting a first signal for controlling power supplied to the heater of the cartridge (e.g., the controller delivers power to the heater for heating the liquid [0089] which is controlled by PWM, and wherein
a fourth terminal for transmitting a second signal for controlling power supplied to the fixed resistor (e.g., the controller delivers a small voltage intermittently to the fixed resistor to deliver a small voltage to the heating coil and the smart controller is configured to use the return data to determine the liquid level in the cig), wherein
Peleg teaches an amount of power applied according to the first signal is different than the amount of power applied according to the second signal (the second signal is smaller and is used for sensing the liquid level), and wherein
the first signal and the second signal are provided at different times (e.g., the primary heating activated by the first signal is interrupted in order to send the second signal small voltage which measures the liquid level [0089], therefore the first and second signals are provided at different times.
PNG
media_image1.png
463
649
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Peleg fails to explicitly disclose a resistance value of the fixed resistor is independent of a temperature of a heater included in the cartridge.
However, Ye teaches fixed resistors in circuits and teaches that its advantageous to use fixed resistors in circuits involved with heating or changing of temperatures because fixed resistors (resistors with a TCR substantially equal to zero) have little or no temperature dependency [0030], see also FIG 3 (no measurable change in resistance at different temperatures) and therefore its current/voltage value can be more accurately determined (e.g., Ohms law). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fixed resistor of Peleg to have a TCR substantially equal to zero so will have little or no temperature dependency and therefore its current/voltage value can be more accurately determined.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Peleg teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Peleg teaches the first signal is a pulse width modulation (PWM) signal (see FIG 7, and [0089]).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Peleg teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Peleg teaches the second signal is a PWM signal (see FIG 7, and [0089]).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Peleg teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Peleg teaches the cartridge comprises:
a heater configured to vaporize the aerosol generating material ([0089], heating coil): and
a liquid delivery element (e.g., wick) configured to deliver the aerosol generating material to the heater ([0031], wick is wrapped around the heating element and delivers liquid to the heater), and
the heater is wound around an outer circumferential surface of the liquid delivery element ([0031], wick is wrapped around the heating element and delivers liquid to the heater).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peleg (US 20140014126A1) and Ye (US20190319445), as applied to claim 1; in view of Wesley (CN204147375), English machine translation relied upon.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Peleg teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Peleg is silent to the specific resistance value of the fixed resistor and therefore Peleg fails to explicitly disclose the specific resistance value of the fixed resistor is less than or equal to 5 Ω.
However, Wesley teaches the resistance value of the fixed resistor is less than or equal to 5 Ω [0167], and that resistance is measured to control the battery voltage/quantity of change and to ensure uniform heating [0081].
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aerosol generating apparatus of Peleg with the resistor of Wesley, because both Peleg and Wesley are directed to aerosol generating devices comprising resistors. Peleg is silent in regards to suitable resistances of resistors for use in in aerosol generating devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to a similar reference to find suitable resistors of suitable resistances for a similar aerosol generating article. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to make this combination because Wesley teaches known resistances for similar aerosol generating devices that ensure uniform heating and this merely involves applying suitable characteristics to a similar product with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peleg (US 20140014126A1) and Ye (US20190319445), as applied to claim 1 above; in view of Oh (WO 2016175459 A1), English machine translation relied upon.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Peleg teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Peleg teaches the smart controller uses the data to determine the liquid level in the cartridge as set forth above. [0089]
However, Peleg fails to explicitly disclose that the processor generates a notification signal when the aerosol generating material is depleted in the cartridge.
However, OH teaches that a notification is generated when the signal is generated. Specifically, OH teaches “the smoking signal transmission device 300 may further include an operation alarm unit. The operation notification unit informs a user of an operation state of the smoking signal transmission device” (page 10 paragraph 1). OH, also teaches, in the advantageous effects section on page 4, that the electronic cigarette smoking signal is transmitted to a user terminal such as a smart phone through a detachable smoking signal transmission device. Thus, OH teaches that it would be advantageous to receive signal notifications regarding a smoking device status data to a user smartphone.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the signal generating aerosol generating apparatus of Peleg with the notification generating smoking apparatus of OH so that the user could have the advantage of receiving smoking notifications in response to smoking status signals so that a user could avoid running out of vaporizable material and interrupting the smoking experience.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks, and most specifically claim amendments filed 9/24/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2 and 5-13 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. In view of the claim amendments the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Peleg and Ye as set forth above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael T Fulton whose telephone number is (703)756-1998. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 - 4:30 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael H Wilson can be reached on 571-270-3882. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.T.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/RUSSELL E SPARKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1755